G.R. No. 118076 November 20, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR GAVINA y NAVARRO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Cesar Gavina was charged with robbery with homicide for the killing of Cipriano Tandingan. The prosecution evidence, through eyewitness SPO1 Esteban Martinez, established that on February 19, 1993, in Dagupan City, the appellant was seen grappling with the victim over a black bag. Appellant then stabbed Tandingan multiple times, took the bag containing over P70,000.00, and attempted to flee. He was apprehended by SPO1 Martinez after boarding a jeepney. The cash and the knife were recovered at the scene. The money belonged to the victim’s employer, Ruben Go, having been recently encashed from a bank.
The appellant admitted to the killing but presented a different version, claiming he stabbed the victim in self-defense after a dispute over being shortchanged during a money exchange. He denied any intent to rob, asserting he never took the victim’s bag. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to life imprisonment, with orders for indemnity and restitution.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide instead of the lesser offense of homicide, due to an alleged lack of animus lucrandi or intent to gain.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the restitution order. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved all elements of robbery with homicide. The positive and credible testimony of SPO1 Martinez, a police officer, clearly established that the appellant employed violence by stabbing the victim to take the bag containing a substantial amount of cash. This act unequivocally demonstrates animus lucrandi. The taking of the bag was contemporaneous with the killing, satisfying the requirement that the homicide be committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
The Court rejected the appellant’s claim of self-defense and lack of intent to gain, finding his bare denial inherently weak and unpersuasive against the consistent and forthright narrative of the prosecution witnesses. The offense is classified as one against property, and the intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking by means of violence. The Court modified the penalty from “life imprisonment” to the correct statutory penalty of reclusion perpetua, noting the legal distinction between the two. It also deleted the order for restitution of P89,200.00 to Ruben Go, as the evidence showed the amount taken and recovered was P70,800.00, for which restitution was already covered.